Stephen Wertheim Profile picture
Oct 2, 2020 10 tweets 3 min read Read on X
As America's political divisions grow only more intense, it can seem tempting to rally around U.S. global leadership — or armed dominance — as one of few areas of unity we have left.

That temptation should be resisted. It is one reason our civic life has broken down.
America's militarized foreign policy has fueled its divisions at home. Not only have weapons of war poured into police departments and onto U.S. streets, but U.S. leaders have constantly presented much of humanity as mortal enemies who must be feared and vanquished.
Bush and Obama often said decent things about Islam, that America was at war with terrorists, not Muslims. But what spoke louder, both in the greater Middle East and in American society, was that the United States was waging war across the Muslim world, with no end in sight.
When the war went wrong, leaders of both parties failed to admit that America had acted too aggressively, that those on the receiving end understandably struck back. Instead, many Americans were left to blame the enemy for being too dangerous and their leaders for being too weak.
In a diverse society, the kinds of people America was killing abroad — whether construed as Muslim, Arab, Middle Eastern, brown, or colored — could also be found within the United States. The foreign enemy easily morphed into the enemy within.
So it did. Endless war come home on America's southern border, first through vigilante groups and then through the Trump movement, which jumbled Latin American immigrants and Middle Eastern terrorists into a single specter of non-white invasion.
This summer, endless war expanded its reach into the homeland. The president deployed military and paramilitary forces to U.S. streets and depicted an entire political party as the abettor of insurrectionist, terrorist violence.
This is a Trump problem, yes, but more profoundly it is an American problem. To my mind, a crucial moment came when the Obama administration killed Osama bin Laden and yet expanded U.S. warfighting across a greater arc of the earth.
The way forward is to reject the original premise of the war on terror as announced by George W. Bush: "Our strategy is this: we will fight them over there so we do not have to face them in the United States of America."
My further thoughts here: newyorker.com/news/our-colum…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Stephen Wertheim

Stephen Wertheim Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @stephenwertheim

Oct 28, 2024
Is there a new China consensus in Washington? Both parties agree that “engagement,” the conceptual framework that guided U.S. policy from Clinton to Obama, is over.

But the contest to replace engagement is ongoing, and it’s not clear which alternative will prevail.

Thread:
Engagement was a conceptual framework: it supplied an overarching logic to orient individual policies and was articulated to all parties, including the Chinese government and the American public.
Since Obama, both political parties have formed a consensus to do away with engagement (rightly so, in my view).

But what positive framework should replace engagement? That’s far from clear. Getting tough on China is not a framework.
Read 11 tweets
Jul 3, 2024
Washington’s biggest mistake with NATO began as a smashing success.

In the 1990s, the United States devised a brilliant method to enlarge the alliance that frontloaded benefits and backloaded costs — leaving it ill-prepared today to contend with the latter. 1/
When the Clinton administration initially sought to expand NATO, it faced daunting obstacles. Cold War divisions were supposed to be healing, but Moscow opposed the enlargement of an alliance historically aimed at Russia. 2/
If the alliance were going to expand, many central and eastern European governments wanted a way in, rather than being stuck forever on the wrong side of Europe’s new dividing line. 3/
Read 14 tweets
Apr 15, 2024
The main challenge for U.S. foreign policy today isn't Trump, and it isn't Biden. It is that the longstanding pursuit of global military dominance has run headlong into the problems of overcommitment, overstretch, and domestic discontent.
The United States is overcommitted because over eight decades, and especially after the Cold War, it has issued defense guarantees to dozens of countries, not of all which are truly essential to the security, prosperity, and freedom of the American people and the American polity.
The United States is overstretched because it no longer has the material resources to meet multiple plausible military contingencies at once, especially to wage wars against China and Russia simultaneously.
Read 7 tweets
Mar 6, 2024
Years in the making, my history of how the concepts of internationalism and isolationism came to be used in American politics, centering on the 1930s and 1940s, is finally out — just as commentators keep nonsensically warning that “isolationism” is somehow on the march.
Despite the ubiquity of the terms internationalism and isolationism in politics and scholarship alike, no one had comprehensively investigated how these categories came into being, and to what effect.
Here's what I found.

1. Internationalism, a nineteenth century term, long preceded the widespread usage of isolationism. Associated with peace and cooperation, it meant seeking to stay out of, or transform, the system of power politics and war centered in Europe. Image
Read 12 tweets
Jun 18, 2023
For decades, U.S. officials have widely recognized that enlarging NATO, especially to Ukraine, ran at least some risk of putting the United States on a collision course with Russia. Below are some quotations that I didn't have room to include in my piece. nytimes.com/2023/06/16/opi…
This should go without saying, but I share these quotations not to excuse Russia's inexcusable, aggressive invasion of Ukraine, or to treat NATO enlargement as the sole or main cause of anything, but to promote the clear-eyed understanding needed to make decisions going forward.
George Kennan, 1998: "'I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely . . . . Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are." nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opi…
Read 11 tweets
Jun 17, 2023
The argument of my piece is precisely that Russian imperialism was a major reason why Moscow opposed NATO expansion. Russian imperialism and NATO enlargement were mutually reinforcing factors — not the either/or that so many commentators today claim.
Thus I disagree with some former policymakers like Michael McFaul who claim that Russia's invasion of Ukraine has "nothing to do" with NATO. It's not either/or. Enlarging NATO threatened Moscow's claim to an imperial sphere of influence in Ukraine and beyond.
Enlarging NATO also threatened the longstanding Russian desire for a security buffer in Eastern Europe. This strategic rationale went hand in hand with an imperial one, and the two became intertwined.
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(